Under a DACA amnesty, American taxpayers would be left with a $26 billion bill. About one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid. Since DACA’s inception under Obama, more than 2,100 illegal aliens have been kicked off the program after it was revealed that they were either criminals or gang members. JOHN BINDER

Trump 'very happy' with bill outlawing future border wall

While
it's commonly known by now that the new spending bill that Congress and the
Trump administration agreed to funds mostly Democratic priorities, and doesn't
fund President Trump's border wall, what's not widely known
is that the new legislation goes even farther than this. Not only does it not
fund the border wall, but it prevents the government from constructing a border wall with anyfunds.

This is
important because the government is already authorized, under a 2006 law, to
build the wall. It was just a question of funding. Before this bill, the
President could conceivable reallocate border security funding from things like
"technology" to the border wall because the wall was authorized. Now,
when the president signs this bill, he will no longer have the option to build
the wall by reallocating funds. Even if Donald Trump somehow got the Mexicans
to pay for it, this legislation would still prohibit him from building the
wall. Trump has incredibly agreed to give up the authorization already on the
books to allow him to build a wall.

And what is
Trump's reaction to this? The president says he's "very happy" with the pending legislation and
plans to sign it.

This
legislation funded all the Democrats' priorities--Obamacare, Planned
Parenthood, and a big bailout to Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the president, who
wanted to cut the EPA by a third, has to settle for a tiny 1% cut. He got less
than half of what he wanted for the military, and all of the environmental
regulations he wanted to cut were rejected by Democrats. Democrats were
incredulous that they, out of power in all branches of the government, got
everything they wanted and Trump got nearly nothing. They are now emboldened to
demand even more when the next spending bill comes up in September. Just look
at this WaPo headline:

President
Trump could have threatened a veto unless he got at least some of what he
wanted. He didn't.
So it raises the question: is he simply a terrible negotiator, or does he have
no real interest in building a border wall?

I get the
feeling he'd like to build a border wall if it would be easy. But he is afraid
to take on the Democrats to get it done. If Ronald Reagan were president he
would have shut down the government before signing such a bill. He would have
gone over the heads of congress to the American people and given speech after
speech staking out his positions.

That's how
Reagan got a Democratic congress to pass sweeping tax cuts. But Trump can't
even get a Republican congress to spend $1.4 billion on a border wall. Trump
simply isn't willing to fight. His idea of fighting is to post an angry note on
Twitter. That's not how one fights to win in the court of public opinion.

So now we will
soon have legislation on the books, with Trump's signature, which will prevent
the government from building a border wall. If Hillary Clinton were president,
she would have done exactly the same.

Exit
Questions:

1) How do
Trump supporters feel when they hear the president say he is "very
happy" with a bill which outlaws border wall construction? Do you still
think this is all part of a master plan to improve border security? If
constructing a wall takes time and needs to be funded in advance, at what point
shall we begin judging Trump on his words and actions?

"If true, it shows Trump being the ultimate cynic and not having the courage to state his true beliefs to the American public who elected him. That's always been my biggest problem with Trump: his lack of integrity and consistent belief system." ----- ED STRAKER

Amnesty is Dead

Some conservatives believe that immigration is more important than any other issue, because if we don’t get control of our borders, nothing else matters. Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

So naturally the people who hold this opinion were elated when Donald Trump entered the presidential race -- with his independence from the illegal alien lobbies on the left and the right -- and were more elated (but not really surprised) when he won the presidency.

Correspondingly, these Trump supporters were mortified when the president recently said that illegal aliens who had been brought to this country as children (i.e. the “Dreamers”) could “rest easy;” that the administration was targeting only violent criminals and that, basically, they could stay.

BLOG: THE TRUMP LIES.... VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IN TRUMPS ADMIN OTHER THAN SESSIONS IS A PRO-AMNESTY AND OPEN WIDER BORDERS ADVOCATE!

Moreover, the recent news that Agricultural Secretary Sonny Purdue has been investigating ways to give amnesty to illegal aliens who work on America’s farms has deepened the sense of betrayal among Trump loyalists. Even in rural Georgia, the donors who write big checks for campaigning politicians are pro-illegal alien.

The forgotten men and women of this country were not expecting to be forgotten again quite so quick.

BLOG: AMNESTY MAY BE "DEAD" BUT OPEN BORDERS, E-VERIFY AND CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT IS ALIVE AND WELL UNDER TRUMP!

While this infiltration of the cabinet and partial reversal of Trump’s personal position are concerning, however, they are no cause for despair. On the contrary, the situation on illegal immigration -- the possibility that the laws on the books may actually be enforced -- has not looked this good in thirty years (if then). Specifically, the possibility that any significant number of the illegal aliens in this country will attain any extended form of legal status appears to be small and shrinking. Simply put, amnesty is dead.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, by giving voice to blasphemous truths and thereby rallying people to his side and winning the election, Trump has, here as in so many other places, changed the gestalt on illegal immigration. Second, by setting in motion the pent-up forces of law enforcement and giving those forces Jeff Sessions and John Kelly to guide them, the realpolitik of the immigration battle has shifted and shifted irrevocably.

Regarding the first point, the media was horrified at the rhetoric of “rapists” and “drug dealers” and “anchor babies” and “the Wall” with which Trump emerged from the presidential campaign gate. But everyone in America knew what he was talking about and those who agreed with him were massively relieved that they could now speak the unspeakable truths in public. Since Trump subsequently won the election, the passionate view of a sizeable portion of America -- that they don’t want illegal aliens here -- has now been exposed regardless of the mass of blue smoke and mirror polls that purport to show that Americans are actually in favor of amnesty and just voted for Trump presumably out of confusion.

This rallying of those who are most opposed to illegal immigration is a stupendous and absurdly unlikely achievement because that particular constituency is, almost by definition, the least able to voice its views. Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. These leftover people who supported Trump struggle to teach their children to obey the rules while illegal immigration teaches those children that the rules are for suckers.

The folks on the receiving end of this bludgeon don’t write $2700 checks to their preferred congressional candidate. They have no voice. Or, actually, they have only one small voice, and that is their ballot. That voice, multiplied fifty million times, has now been heard and it can’t be un-heard.

But the concrete, realpolitik reason that amnesty is dead is that the appropriate law enforcement policies have been set in motion and they are gaining momentum fast!

I have long argued that the illegal alien community in the United States is highly fragile. President Trump’s executive order directing Immigration and Customs Authorities and Border Patrol officers to broadly interpret their jurisdiction for capturing and removing illegal aliens has had the immediate effect of decreasing attempts to cross the border as well as inspiring panic in illegal immigrant communities. Police officers and county sheriffs have told me that, even at the height of the Obama era of nonenforcement, illegal aliens shunned the police. Now, in the era of Trump, the possibility of going to work and ending your week in Mexico is a real and potent threat. (This is particularly true if you live, as I do, in Massachusetts). It is a commonplace that law enforcement professionals go to sleep muttering “5% enforcement equals 95% compliance.”

At the same time, businesses cannot prosper in an environment of uncertainty. The initial impulse of business owners in agriculture and other illegal-alien-heavy industries is to demand, yet again, some succor from the government in terms of work permits for their illegal workers. Just such measures are championed by incoming Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. However, assuming this relief is not forthcoming in the near future (and I’ll get to that in a minute) the only rational policy is for business owners to begin exploring their other options -- which might include automation or wage increases.

When every small business owner in America finally takes paper and pencil and sits down at the kitchen table with their spouse and says “honey, we are going to have to figure out how to make our business work when we can’t hire illegal aliens anymore,” then and only then will the light appear at the end of the tunnel.

But the key to the problem and the reason for optimism is this: with the law now being enforced, however incrementally, even without funds for more agents, even without funds for the Wall, even without E-Verify, the pressure to re-evaluate in the illegal alien and the business communities will only grow. The success of the policy in reducing the inflow and initiating “self-deportation” will feed back on itself. For years the only salient argument of the open borders advocates on both the right and the left was that enforcing the current laws on the books was impossible. As it becomes obvious how easy, in fact, enforcement is, those advocates will be forced to rely on their more avaricious motives for keeping illegal aliens here.

Equally crucial in the realpolitik is this: the only path for interrupting this virtuous law enforcement cycle goes through Congress, which failed to pass amnesty under either Bush or Obama, despite mighty efforts. Whether and how Trump will attempt to collude with Paul Ryan and the Democrats to move an amnesty through Congress is uncertain. Certainly for Trump such a blatant abandonment of the forgotten men and women would carry a high price. But nevertheless a battle like that could be in the future cards. We will need to keep the phone numbers of our representatives handy.

The battle is far from won. Eleven million illegal aliens and an untold number of business owners still need to get their minds right and our champion in the White House shows distressing signs of going wobbly. But I’ll proclaim it anyway. Ding, dong, amnesty is dead.

Plenty of money for ILLEGALS……AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS

HOMELESS ELDERLY in AMERICA UNDER MEX OCCUPATION

A Nation dies young, poor, addicted and homeless…. It’s the American dream as the rich get super rich!

During Obama’s 8 year bankster regime, he openly operated and funded the Mexican fascist racist party of LA RAZA “The Race” from the White House under La Raza VP Cecilia Munoz…. Google Obama and LA RAZA!

California: The sick man of the United States…. A STATE UNDER MEX OCCUPATION!

It would also establish a “2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions, or two or more prior deportations.”

RAPE, MURDER, SCALPING… THE MEXICANS HAVE ARRIVED!

Sheriff: MS-13 Gang Brings Machetes, Rape, Scalping to Texas

BY BOB PRICE

Members of the hyper-violent MS-13 transnational criminal gang are bringing severe tactics like machete-hacking murders, rape, and scalping to Texas according to the Texas Sheriff’s Association.

MEXICO PLANS INVASION TO EXPAND LA RAZA OCCUPATION!

“More significant still, a former Mexican official, Jorge Castañeda, threatened to unleash Mexican cartels onto the U.S. to retaliate for deportations of illegal immigrants and the construction of a border wall. “

During Obama’s 8 year bankster
regime, he openly operated and funded the Mexican fascist racist party of LA
RAZA “The Race” from the White House under La Raza VP Cecilia Munoz…. Google
Obama and LA RAZA!

Hell freezes over: Lefties attack Obama

It seems that the news of Obama getting $400,000 for a speech to a Wall Street firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, and that Random House will pay Obama up to sixty million dollars for two books has upset the usual Kool-Aid drinkers who support Obama. Or maybe it was the spirit of May 1, the commie holiday.

First, Van Jones, the Communist who once worked for Obama and now works at CNN, said Obama should do a "poverty tour" to visit poor areas.

Fat chance. During his presidency, Obama's policies contributed to the increase in poverty. Obama vacationed at Martha's Vineyard, while Michelle vacationed in Hawaii, France, Italy, Vail, Mexico, and other non-poverty spots. The Obamas flew to Manhattan for "dates" and regularly had lavish parties at the White House. They lived large at taxpayer expense. Obama did not care about the "poverty areas" while he was president, so why would he care now?

I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots. That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans. And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy.

Finally, two Democrats, one a commie and one a candidate, tell the truth about Obama that was obvious to conservatives and to the voters who elected Trump. Obama does not care about the poor. He also does not care about security of our country given his appeasement of Iran on the nuclear deal, and his failure to enforce our borders and enforce immigration laws.

The question should be why Warren and Jones, as representatives of the Democratic Party, are surprised that Obama is cashing in. Obama was supported by Wall Street, Hollywood millionaires, and the well paid mainstream media. He did nothing to improve the economy and went out of his way to damage the economy with his refusal to approve the oil pipeline and offshore drilling, his war on coal, and his numerous regulations on business.

Jones, the commie, should ask his former boss, Obama, to "share the wealth" of the $60 million.

During Obama’s 8 year bankster
regime, he openly operated and funded the Mexican fascist racist party of LA
RAZA “The Race” from the White House under La Raza VP Cecilia Munoz…. Google
Obama and LA RAZA!

BARACK OBAMA PLANS A THIRD TERM: HIS CRONY BANKSTERS, LA RAZA, MUSLIMS
AND THOSE MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS HE FUNDED ARE BEHIND HIM…. Along with George
Soros!

THE OBAMA COUP TO BE DICTATOR:

THE ARMY OF ILLEGALS TO BRING
AMERICA DOWN AND FORM THE OBAMA MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP THAT WILL BE OPEN
BORDERS AND PRO LA RAZA FASCIST SUPREMACY.

Daniel Greenfield, the award-winning Shillman
Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, believes (OBAMA'S POLITICAL PARTY)
“OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild than the Clinton Foundation ever
was.”

THE
CONSPIRACY OF TRAITORS:

THE
CLINTON-OBAMA PLAN TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA FOR GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES
INCLUDING THEIR PAYMASTER GEORGE SOROS!

"When it comes to Islamic
terror or shariah imposition, Obama and other globalists preach a type of
defenselessness and impotence: something we have to abide. For many liberals,
virtue signaling, the epitome of vanity,
is more important than saving lives, even the lives of their countrymen."

THE OBAMA WAR ON AMERICA: His OFA Party is Dedicated to Destroying
American and Building the Obama Muslim-style dictatorship funded by crony
banksters.

Daniel
Greenfield, the award-winning Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center,
believes (OBAMA'S POLITICAL PARTY) “OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild
than the Clinton Foundation ever was.”

*

"Obama is no
fool and he understands -- having encouraged Black Lives Matter and the war on
police and law enforcement, having facilitated ballooning welfare rolls and
doubling student debt to $1.35 trillion, having presided over a flood of
immigrants illegally crossing the southern border, and having pushed
unprecedented deficit spending that added nearly a trillion dollars annually to
the federal debt and doubling that debt in eight years to $20 trillion -- that
the U.S. is nearer collapse than at any previous time. And every Marxist knows
that socialist transformation first requires collapse of the old order."

PSYCHOPATH!

THE LEGACY of BARACK OBAMA: MUSLIM
PSYCHOPATH AND BANKSTER RENT BOY WHO CAME NEAR TO CREATING A MUSLIM-STYLE
DICTATORSHIP BY SABOTAGING AMERICA’S HOMELAND SECURITY AND FUNDING THE MEXICAN
FASCIST RACIST PARTY of LA RAZA.

The WSWS has reported several
times that during Obama’s administration the wealth of the richest 400
Americans grew from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion and the stock market
enjoyed one of its most successful runs in history.

“The terrorist suspect’s most recent efforts through “open
society” foundations he funds are bringing globalist gunpowder plots to places
like Poland and Armenia, in the long march to make the world safe for
plutocracy.”

EVEN BEFORE HIS FIRST DAY AS PRESIDENT, "HOPE & CHANGE" HUCKSTER OBAMA HAD SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY! ..... DURING OBAMA'S FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE, THIS CRONY BANKSTERS MADE MORE THAN THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS GEORGE BUSH SERVED THEM!

$$$$$$$$$

“law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists,” “the top 1 percent or so of the income scale,” The New York Times worries about the high political cost of Obama’s $400,000 speeches

By David Walsh3 May 2017

The august editorial board of the New York Times weighed in anxiously May 1 on the decision of former president Barack Obama to accept “a reported $400,000 to speak to a Wall Street firm” (“The Cost of Barack Obama’s Speech”). The editorial is brief and unconvincing, bringing forward arguments and issuing an appeal to Obama that the editors themselves hardly seem to believe in.

In its own way, the Times’ piece reflects the ongoing disintegration of the two-party system in the US and the apprehension of the American ruling elite about what this foretells.

The pompous editorial paints a picture of a politician who, like Jesus during his time in the desert, has confronted temptations numerous times before and until now successfully resisted them--or at least come out even. Obama, we are told, has long “wrestled with what it means to be a representative public servant in an era of purchased influence.”

Citing then Senator Obama’s comment, in The Audacity of Hope (2006), that he had found himself at a certain point in his political career spending much of his time with “law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists,” “the top 1 percent or so of the income scale,” the Times implies (without providing any proof) that Obama’s admission amounted to a career-defining self-criticism, and that this self-critical attitude sustained him through his years in the White House.

Now, however, does his acceptance of a $400,000 speaking fee represent “a betrayal of that sentiment”? “Perhaps not,” write the editors, “but it is disheartening that a man whose historic candidacy was premised on a moral examination of politics now joins almost every modern president in cashing in.”

The newspaper’s presentation of Obama’s career is thoroughly deceitful. Insofar as the latter ever “wrestled” with any choices in the direction of his life, they all had to do, from a very early point in his career, with the best means of defending American big business and “national security” interests while maintaining, if possible, the lie that the Democratic Party was more oriented to the “average” man and woman.

Obama emerged from the Illinois Democratic Party, one of the most corrupt entities ever created by man, with the public backing of a layer of trade union officials, “lefts” and upper middle class African American politicians. Less publicly, influential financial, political and intelligence forces no doubt saw in Obama years ago a marketable and valuable commodity, a man who could present himself--as we wrote in our review of The Audacity of Hope --as both “white and black, liberal and conservative, foreign and American, a man above party ideology and the petty bickering of partisan politics.”

During Obama’s two terms in office, the stock market soared, the fantastically wealthy grew even richer and the social divide in America substantially widened. The Times editorial remains silent about this. It is silent because the newspaper’s owners and top staff too have sucked up their share of the same parasitical, reckless stock market and real estate bonanza that is the ultimate source of Obama’s enrichment and, for that matter, that of his successor, Donald Trump.

But appearances and tone count for a good deal in bourgeois politics, especially in America where almost nothing of substance separates the two major parties. The Times comment points to this reality, observing that “As a couple and a family, the Obamas brought grace, empathy and high standards to their time in the White House, in stark contrast to the workaday vulgarity of its current occupants.”

The editorial jumps over the content of Obama’s tenure in office to express disappointment with his decision to “conform to a lamentable post-presidential model created fairly recently,” i.e., of supping “at the corporate table.”

In the immediate aftermath of the revelations about Obama’s huge speaking fees, the US media felt it necessary, by and large, to accommodate themselves to the obvious widespread disgust. By now, however, Obama’s open defenders have found their voice. Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, for example, asks in a headline, “What’s wrong with Barack Obama receiving $400,000 for a speech?” and goes on to assert, “If after 20 grueling years in public service Obama wants to pick up some financial security by giving speeches, call off the dogs and let him be.” Isaac J. Bailey, of the Charlotte Observer editorial board, in his headline, claims, “You don’t have to be poor to fight for the poor,” and proceeds from there.

But these kinds of arguments, and there are many along these lines, clearly create unease at the Times. It’s all very well for Obama, now out of office, to make a small fortune speaking to corporate events, and for his shortsighted apologists--who only dream of making that type of money--to defend him, but the Times ’ editors must take a slightly broader view.

The May 1 editorial pointedly reminds Obama that the practice of accepting vast amounts from big business “contributed to the downfall of the Democrat he hoped would cement his legacy. The tens of millions that Hillary Clinton raised from speaking to corporate interests most likely haunts her now--or should.” So much for “white racism” and “misogyny”!--the Times more or less acknowledges that it was Clinton’s identification with Wall Street and the status quo that did her in.

Then there is the broader question of the fate of the Democratic Party as a whole. The editors note that “the traditional party of working people has lost touch with them. In a poll released last week, more than two-thirds of voters, including nearly half of Democrats themselves, said the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of the American people. For the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the party’s political opponents. There’s little doubt that Democratic leaders’ unseemly attachment to the party’s wealthiest donors contributed to that indictment.”

It’s not simply a matter of wealthy donors, of course, but of decades of attacks by Democrats and Republicans alike, black and white, male and female, on the jobs, living standards and democratic rights of broad layers of the population. This combined process of the endless shift to the right by the entire political establishment and ever-increasing popular discontent with its policies has reached a nodal point.

The Times editors are perturbed, but they are entirely powerless to halt the course of this development.

"If true, it
shows Trump being the ultimate cynic and not having the courage to state his
true beliefs to the American public who elected him. That's always been
my biggest problem with Trump: his lack of integrity and consistent belief
system." ----- ED STRAKER

Amnesty is Dead

Some conservatives believe that immigration is more important than any other issue, because if we don’t get control of our borders, nothing else matters. Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

So naturally the people who hold this opinion were elated when Donald Trump entered the presidential race -- with his independence from the illegal alien lobbies on the left and the right -- and were more elated (but not really surprised) when he won the presidency.

Correspondingly, these Trump supporters were mortified when the president recently said that illegal aliens who had been brought to this country as children (i.e. the “Dreamers”) could “rest easy;” that the administration was targeting only violent criminals and that, basically, they could stay.

BLOG: THE TRUMP LIES.... VIRTUALLY EVERYONE IN TRUMPS ADMIN OTHER THAN SESSIONS IS A PRO-AMNESTY AND OPEN WIDER BORDERS ADVOCATE!

Moreover, the recent news that Agricultural Secretary Sonny Purdue has been investigating ways to give amnesty to illegal aliens who work on America’s farms has deepened the sense of betrayal among Trump loyalists. Even in rural Georgia, the donors who write big checks for campaigning politicians are pro-illegal alien.

The forgotten men and women of this country were not expecting to be forgotten again quite so quick.

BLOG: AMNESTY MAY BE "DEAD" BUT OPEN BORDERS, E-VERIFY AND CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT IS ALIVE AND WELL UNDER TRUMP!

While this infiltration of the cabinet and partial reversal of Trump’s personal position are concerning, however, they are no cause for despair. On the contrary, the situation on illegal immigration -- the possibility that the laws on the books may actually be enforced -- has not looked this good in thirty years (if then). Specifically, the possibility that any significant number of the illegal aliens in this country will attain any extended form of legal status appears to be small and shrinking. Simply put, amnesty is dead.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, by giving voice to blasphemous truths and thereby rallying people to his side and winning the election, Trump has, here as in so many other places, changed the gestalt on illegal immigration. Second, by setting in motion the pent-up forces of law enforcement and giving those forces Jeff Sessions and John Kelly to guide them, the realpolitik of the immigration battle has shifted and shifted irrevocably.

Regarding the first point, the media was horrified at the rhetoric of “rapists” and “drug dealers” and “anchor babies” and “the Wall” with which Trump emerged from the presidential campaign gate. But everyone in America knew what he was talking about and those who agreed with him were massively relieved that they could now speak the unspeakable truths in public. Since Trump subsequently won the election, the passionate view of a sizeable portion of America -- that they don’t want illegal aliens here -- has now been exposed regardless of the mass of blue smoke and mirror polls that purport to show that Americans are actually in favor of amnesty and just voted for Trump presumably out of confusion.

This rallying of those who are most opposed to illegal immigration is a stupendous and absurdly unlikely achievement because that particular constituency is, almost by definition, the least able to voice its views. Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. These leftover people who supported Trump struggle to teach their children to obey the rules while illegal immigration teaches those children that the rules are for suckers.

The folks on the receiving end of this bludgeon don’t write $2700 checks to their preferred congressional candidate. They have no voice. Or, actually, they have only one small voice, and that is their ballot. That voice, multiplied fifty million times, has now been heard and it can’t be un-heard.

But the concrete, realpolitik reason that amnesty is dead is that the appropriate law enforcement policies have been set in motion and they are gaining momentum fast!

I have long argued that the illegal alien community in the United States is highly fragile. President Trump’s executive order directing Immigration and Customs Authorities and Border Patrol officers to broadly interpret their jurisdiction for capturing and removing illegal aliens has had the immediate effect of decreasing attempts to cross the border as well as inspiring panic in illegal immigrant communities. Police officers and county sheriffs have told me that, even at the height of the Obama era of nonenforcement, illegal aliens shunned the police. Now, in the era of Trump, the possibility of going to work and ending your week in Mexico is a real and potent threat. (This is particularly true if you live, as I do, in Massachusetts). It is a commonplace that law enforcement professionals go to sleep muttering “5% enforcement equals 95% compliance.”

At the same time, businesses cannot prosper in an environment of uncertainty. The initial impulse of business owners in agriculture and other illegal-alien-heavy industries is to demand, yet again, some succor from the government in terms of work permits for their illegal workers. Just such measures are championed by incoming Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. However, assuming this relief is not forthcoming in the near future (and I’ll get to that in a minute) the only rational policy is for business owners to begin exploring their other options -- which might include automation or wage increases.

When every small business owner in America finally takes paper and pencil and sits down at the kitchen table with their spouse and says “honey, we are going to have to figure out how to make our business work when we can’t hire illegal aliens anymore,” then and only then will the light appear at the end of the tunnel.

But the key to the problem and the reason for optimism is this: with the law now being enforced, however incrementally, even without funds for more agents, even without funds for the Wall, even without E-Verify, the pressure to re-evaluate in the illegal alien and the business communities will only grow. The success of the policy in reducing the inflow and initiating “self-deportation” will feed back on itself. For years the only salient argument of the open borders advocates on both the right and the left was that enforcing the current laws on the books was impossible. As it becomes obvious how easy, in fact, enforcement is, those advocates will be forced to rely on their more avaricious motives for keeping illegal aliens here.

Equally crucial in the realpolitik is this: the only path for interrupting this virtuous law enforcement cycle goes through Congress, which failed to pass amnesty under either Bush or Obama, despite mighty efforts. Whether and how Trump will attempt to collude with Paul Ryan and the Democrats to move an amnesty through Congress is uncertain. Certainly for Trump such a blatant abandonment of the forgotten men and women would carry a high price. But nevertheless a battle like that could be in the future cards. We will need to keep the phone numbers of our representatives handy.

The battle is far from won. Eleven million illegal aliens and an untold number of business owners still need to get their minds right and our champion in the White House shows distressing signs of going wobbly. But I’ll proclaim it anyway. Ding, dong, amnesty is dead.

Plenty of money for ILLEGALS……AMERICA’S
OPEN BORDERS

HOMELESS ELDERLY in AMERICA UNDER
MEX OCCUPATION

A Nation dies young, poor, addicted
and homeless…. It’s the American dream as the rich get super rich!

During Obama’s 8 year bankster
regime, he openly operated and funded the Mexican fascist racist party of LA
RAZA “The Race” from the White House under La Raza VP Cecilia Munoz…. Google
Obama and LA RAZA!

California: The sick man of the United States…. A
STATE UNDER MEX OCCUPATION!

It would also establish a “2-year mandatory minimum federal
prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous
deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those
with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions, or two or more prior
deportations.”

RAPE, MURDER, SCALPING… THE
MEXICANS HAVE ARRIVED!

Sheriff: MS-13 Gang Brings Machetes, Rape,
Scalping to Texas

BY BOB PRICE

Members of the hyper-violent
MS-13 transnational criminal gang are bringing severe tactics like
machete-hacking murders, rape, and scalping to Texas according to the Texas
Sheriff’s Association.

MEXICO PLANS INVASION TO
EXPAND LA RAZA OCCUPATION!

“More significant still, a
former Mexican official, Jorge Castañeda, threatened to unleash
Mexican cartels onto the U.S. to retaliate for deportations of illegal
immigrants and the construction of a border wall. “

Trump 'very happy' with bill outlawing

future border wall

While
it's commonly known by now that the new spending bill that Congress and the
Trump administration agreed to funds mostly Democratic priorities, and doesn't
fund President Trump's border wall, what's not widely known
is that the new legislation goes even farther than this. Not only does it not
fund the border wall, but it prevents the government from constructing a border wall with anyfunds.

This is
important because the government is already authorized, under a 2006 law, to
build the wall. It was just a question of funding. Before this bill, the
President could conceivable reallocate border security funding from things like
"technology" to the border wall because the wall was authorized. Now,
when the president signs this bill, he will no longer have the option to build
the wall by reallocating funds. Even if Donald Trump somehow got the Mexicans
to pay for it, this legislation would still prohibit him from building the
wall. Trump has incredibly agreed to give up the authorization already on the
books to allow him to build a wall.

And what is
Trump's reaction to this? The president says he's "very happy" with the pending legislation and
plans to sign it.

This
legislation funded all the Democrats' priorities--Obamacare, Planned
Parenthood, and a big bailout to Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the president, who
wanted to cut the EPA by a third, has to settle for a tiny 1% cut. He got less
than half of what he wanted for the military, and all of the environmental
regulations he wanted to cut were rejected by Democrats. Democrats were
incredulous that they, out of power in all branches of the government, got
everything they wanted and Trump got nearly nothing. They are now emboldened to
demand even more when the next spending bill comes up in September. Just look
at this WaPo headline:

President
Trump could have threatened a veto unless he got at least some of what he
wanted. He didn't.
So it raises the question: is he simply a terrible negotiator, or does he have
no real interest in building a border wall?

I get the
feeling he'd like to build a border wall if it would be easy. But he is afraid
to take on the Democrats to get it done. If Ronald Reagan were president he
would have shut down the government before signing such a bill. He would have
gone over the heads of congress to the American people and given speech after
speech staking out his positions.

That's how
Reagan got a Democratic congress to pass sweeping tax cuts. But Trump can't
even get a Republican congress to spend $1.4 billion on a border wall. Trump
simply isn't willing to fight. His idea of fighting is to post an angry note on
Twitter. That's not how one fights to win in the court of public opinion.

So now we will
soon have legislation on the books, with Trump's signature, which will prevent
the government from building a border wall. If Hillary Clinton were president,
she would have done exactly the same.

Exit
Questions:

1) How do
Trump supporters feel when they hear the president say he is "very
happy" with a bill which outlaws border wall construction? Do you still
think this is all part of a master plan to improve border security? If
constructing a wall takes time and needs to be funded in advance, at what point
shall we begin judging Trump on his words and actions?